........................
2.2 Environment impacts of BRT
Compared with private car travel [19], public transport can reduce thegreenhouse gas impact per passenger mile, especially when considering single usevehicle travel [20] and regional driving and vehicle characteristics [21].
The content of PM and NOx is relatively high, which is the precursor ofphotochemical smog. The widespread use of clean diesel and other low emission fuelshas slowed the impact of BRT on air quality. The net air quality impact of BRT maybe positive. In areas where BRT officially provides bus services, such as LatinAmerica, BRT systems have replaced old, poorly maintained, high emissionpassenger cars and minibuses, and air quality has improved. One study found thatcommuters in Mexico City were less exposed to air pollutants after implementing theMetrobus BRT system[22]. Hildalgo et al. (2013) after the first two phases ofTransmilenio, over a period of 20 years, the health cost savings due to emissionreduction are estimated to be $114 million. Because old buses replaced byTransmilenio moved to smaller towns on the edge of the city [23].
With regard to "global pollution" and carbon dioxide emissions, BRT may onceagain bring net benefits. Attracting former drivers to BRT can significantly reducevehicle mileage (VKT) and thus carbon dioxide emissions [24]. It is because of theInternational Energy Agency (2013) calls for the large-scale deployment of BRTservices around the world, adding a total of 25000 kilometers of dedicated laneservices, to help limit the global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees. [25].
................................
3 Methodology ...........................24
3.1 Goal and scope of definition .....................24
3.2 Inventory analysis ............................25
4. Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects...........................33
4.1 Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects.....................33
4.2 TEEMP BRT Data requirements ...............................36
5 Case study: City of Almaty, Kazakhstan .......................44
5.1 Public transport development status in Almaty ......................44
5.2 Brief introduction of Almaty BRT Project ...................48
5 Case study: City of Almaty, Kazakhstan
5.1 Public transport development status in Almaty
Almaty is the largest metropolis in Kazakhstan with a population of 1.36 million.It covers an area of 339.4 square kilometers [67]. Before 1998, it was the capital andthe national, historical, cultural, financial, scientific and industrial center of thecountry. Almaty is a fast-growing metropolis adjacent to the capital of Kazakhstan(Nursultan). It is experiencing a huge ecological problem, which is related to thetraffic problem of the city.
......................
6 Summary and Results
6.1 Summary of Prospects
An operational analysis of the Almaty BRT system shows that in the first 20years, the system will significantly reduce emissions and fuel consumption along thecorridor. The model uses various inputs to calculate emissions over a 20-year periodfrom corridor length and BRT passengers to vehicle fuel efficiency. This paperanalyzes and compares the BRT scheme and the no project scheme, and assumes thatCNG bus and other vehicles, such as private car, taxi and minibus, are in the twoschemes over time.
Comfort is one of the important service characteristics to attract other traffictravelers. It can reverse the trend of the decline of public transport volume and thelong-term cumulat
